Moose Jaw Forum

Oh right Chuck-ee, and the TCU/MFCU on Fan Jet engines do nothing to compensate for changes in atmospheric density, pressure and fuel/oxygen mixtures in order to achieve efficient combustion at higher altitudes. Incomplete combustion = wasted fuel, just what the Airlines need!
As I said before you really are a true waste of Digital Space - go away!!

Chuck-ee, CO is NOT one of the two primary resultants of hydrocarbon combustion, UNLESS there is incomplete combustion (usually caused by lack of oxygen). But is it your premise that jet engines are actually not designed to fly at 35000 feet? That they are intentionally built to be inefficient?

Just because there is less oxygen at that altitude does not mean that jet engines are not designed to run there with the correct fuel-air mixture. CO is a very TINY or even ZERO emission from jet exhaust, as I showed you previously from that same site that you erratically posted your emissions info from. The emissions index I showed you was in grams per kilogram of fuel expended and it only applied during takeoff and landing which are far less efficient that cruising at altitude. Those emissions standards documents specify the maximum allowed POLLUTANTS from jet exhaust and neither CO2 or H2O are considered pollutants, at least not yet.

Don't try to cover up the facts here, you have no idea what you are talking about. You can't answer the quiz because you CHOOSE to KNOW things that are simply wrong, just like any other religious thinker.

Sledge wrote on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:13 pm: Oh right Chuck-ee, and the TCU/MFCU on Fan Jet engines do nothing to compensate for changes in atmospheric density, pressure and fuel/oxygen mixtures in order to achieve efficient combustion at higher altitudes. Incomplete combustion = wasted fuel, just what the Airlines need!

I'm not sure why you would be making references to TCU(s), especially where "Fan Jet Engines" are used in the same sentence? Unless your TLA (three letter acronym) has a meaning which I'm not aware of? Its either Turbo Control Unit; for controlling the waste-gate valve in "Turbo-Charged" engine applications, or, Throttle Control Unit, and that is highly unlikely.
I'm not sure what your other point is either; referencing an Main Fuel Control Unit MFCU?

Look, practically all modern jet aircraft, are equipped with FADEC(s), HMU(s) and EFCU(s), all for the control of the fuel, in one way or another.
The pilots will also have to adjust throttle settings at cruise altitudes, in an effort to try and maximize fuel burn, over the distance planned to travel...headwinds, or weaker than expected, or predicted tailwinds, along with possible course diversions, due to weather (thunderstorms up to 60 thousand feet) can all influence the efficiency of the fuel burn over the course of the planned trip...engines are sometimes, also running below specifications...this is determined through routine "power checks" during flights.
Economics will always dictate, whether it is more financially feasible to change an engine, before its overhaul time is up, simply because its burning more fuel than another one.

Apart from all of that - there still has not been invented, a piece of equipment, on board an airplane, fitted to the engine, which can actually produce...create additional oxygen...the fuel controls can only reduce, the amount of fuel going into the combustion chambers (lean out the mixture) and this is where fuel economy comes in...there is a trade off for speed however...time is also money!

This is why [OXYGEN], airplanes have altitude operating limits, known as "Service Ceilings", albeit for the most part, are pretty close, for the classes of certain aircraft.

The Boeing 747-400 series for instance, is 41,000 feet. The Boeing 737-600 series is at 39,400 feet. The Airbuses A319 / A320 / A321 all have a service ceiling of 39,800 feet. And, the new Airbus 380, has a service ceiling of 43,000...the Boeing 777 is 43,100 feet.
The Concord's service ceiling was 60,000 feet, but it had four "After Burner" fitted jet engines.

Sledge repeats on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:13 pm: As I said before you really are a true waste of Digital Space - go away!!

I already responded to this!!

It is conclusively obvious now, that there are certain ones partaking (usual suspects) on this forum, who, when confronted with differences of opinions (rebuttals), become very rude and aggressive (language).
They appear to be left with no other alternatives, I can only surmise from a lack of respect and education, to resort to using personal attacks, perhaps through their personal frustrations of getting nowhere. This is quite often angled toward religion and or God too.

It also does not seem to matter, or make much difference, whether one provides supporting information, which is at most times, credible evidence, provided from very reliable sources, unlike the Wikipedia sources, often used by some.

But, you know what? its not the first time that I have encountered this, and it surely won’t be the last either. And, as I’ve said previously – it is quite normal and expected…typically looked upon as; The Path Of Least Resistance.

Only you can change this.

Chemtrails - spraying in our sky

"Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

Again to quote the Discovery website: "Across the planet, millions of people have seen them - jet aircraft vapor trails lingering in the sky. Are these just regular "contrails" - the carbon and water vapor exhaust from commercial planes - or are they potentially toxic "chemical trails" emitted intentionally as part of secret geo-engineering experiments or weather-weaponization tests? Experts and passionate observers on both sides present their best evidence - from video and photographs, satellite imagery, soil samples and military evidence. We shed light on a subject that has many people looking up for answers to disturbing questions. A team of technicians at an independent laboratory will examine the samples to finally get to the heart of the question: What is in those fuel emissions and what causes them to linger for hours and link up with one another like a ghostly blanket that seems to affect the weather and perhaps our health?"

The one hour "Chemical Contrails" episode, first aired 22 February 2007 appeared to be a compromise of some sort - perhaps the pro-chemtrail side was too convincing and the government types and "scientists" were coming off poorly because in the version aired an excess of screen time was devoted to a rather meaningless laboratory testing of commercial jet fuel that appeared to this viewer to be extended to fill where something earlier had been edited out.

When viewing part 4 of the documentary, pay special attention at the 03:36 point of this video, and listen for the types of chemicals detected from aircraft contrails.

Discovery Channel series